The books and essays of the "new atheists" (like Dawkins, Harris, Dennet and the Silverman you reviewed) cannot interest me.
Why should they? Why can't we accept that people can be pro or anti sets of ideas and both views can be discussed?
-
-
It should be discussed but anti-theism should not be confused with atheism, just like with Marxism and socialism.
-
Atheists, humanists, anti-theists and agnostics live all in the same house but each should have separate rooms.
-
Now it is one chaotic mess where nobody knows what the labels mean and the most radical determines the reputation of all.
-
So lets avoid labels and tribalism? Labels should serve a descriptive purpose when relevant. Not an identity.
-
What kind of description does religious people have if you present yourself as atheist? The Dawkins one of course.
-
As "New Atheist" he's an atheist disguised as an anti-theist and determines the description of atheism as a whole.
-
Hence why I do not call myself atheist anymore, because the image it creates doesn't fit me at all.
-
Great.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Being pro an ideology and being anti it are two sides of the same coin. Can't say 'only speak of this if its positive.'
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.